Share this story

When Microsoft first introduced the Xbox One in May of 2013, it focused on the $499 box's non-gaming functions, such as TV streaming, Skype phone calls, and the voice-activated Kinect. The audience of gamers was largely confused—a video mocking that "TV and sports"-focused event is now approaching 8 million views on YouTube. By the time Microsoft got around to really talking about games at E3 months later, it was too mired in controversy surrounding the online check-ins and DRM on the system for many people to notice.

Further Reading

In introducing the new Apple TV, Apple also focused on non-gaming functions first, such as TV streaming, Apple Music, and a voice-activated Siri search. The ability to play games was a secondary concern, given only a modicum of stage time after a thrilling demonstration of searching for Sean Connery's James Bond movies using only your voice.

What was disastrous for Microsoft's rollout may actually be appropriate for Apple's. The $150 Apple TV doesn't seem to be positioning itself as a direct competitor to the more expensive and more powerful gaming consoles from Sony and Microsoft (or even the likes of the Nvidia Shield). Instead, Apple is positioning the device as a more powerful, more expensive alternative to popular media-streaming devices like Chromecast, Roku, and Amazon Fire TV—a competitor that just happens to have the ability to play some cool games on the side.

Limited hardware, limited controls

Hardware-wise, the A8 processor inside the new Apple TV isn't even top of the line for the iPhone line anymore, much less anything that's going to give the likes of the Xbox One and PS4 (or mid-range Steam Machines) a run for their money at the high end of the gaming spectrum. But it's powerful enough to run "console class" graphics in games like Disney Infinity. That's probably enough for an audience that sees gaming as an added bonus, rather than a core feature of the device, but not enough for many consumers looking to the box as their only game console.

Then there's the included remote, which doubles as a game controller thanks to a small touchpad area and a motion sensing accelerometer. It's hard for me to evaluate without actually getting my hands on it, but as much as it looks intuitive and well-made for simple, one-handed gaming, it seems equally unsuited for anything more complex than an average NES title, thanks to a lack of any physical gaming buttons.

Apple TV games will be able to make use of an optional bluetooth controller if they need (Transistor's Apple TV listing already suggests this, and Guitar Hero will doubtless use the proprietary guitar). Still, the fact that such a controller doesn't come with the Apple TV will severely limit the audience for such titles and limit developers' willingness to build for them. Apple didn't even bother to mention the possibility of using standard bluetooth controllers at its press event, showing just how unimportant the company considers the feature.

An "open" TV platform

A new multiplayer version of Crossy Road may not be a killer app for Apple TV, but it's a nice addition for sure.

The most intriguing thing about the Apple TV, from a gaming business standpoint, is the extension of the iOS development model to the living room. Sure, the iOS App Store isn't a completely open platform; Apple can and does enforce sometimes ridiculous rules on its developers. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have been working to open up their own platforms in recent years, making it easier for indie game developers to get their games on those consoles.

Still, the iOS-like tvOS seems poised to be by far the easiest way for a game developer to get a game onto a TV-based console this side of the Ouya (or the upcoming Steam Machines, which are really just PCs). Unlike the Ouya, though, the Apple TV seems likely to have both a significant base of consumers drawn in by its video capabilities and buy-in from established developers that are already comfortable making and selling games through iOS' SDK. Apple's significant marketing muscle won't hurt on that score, either.

While this openness means Apple TV's gaming selection will likely be quickly filled with lowest common denominator cruft, it also increases the potential for the next surprising breakout hit to find traction on the platform. Titles like Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Crossy Road, and countless others that became viral hits in iOS' open pressure cooker likely wouldn't have even had the chance to be released in the more restrictive environments of current console platforms.

That said, just porting the same kind of games that work on iOS to the Apple TV won't always be a winning solution. Games designed for direct manipulation on a small multitouch often aren't going to work with indirect, single-finger touchpad swipes on a huge HDTV. What's more, many iOS games benefit from the common use case of offering a mindless distraction while the TV is in use by someone else (or just on for mindless background noise itself). Forcing those kinds of games to take up the entire TV screen is actually a disadvantage, in a way.

On the other hand, moving from iOS to Apple TV gives these previously cramped games a lot of extra screen real estate to work with. The best demonstration of this advantage at today's press event was the new multiplayer modes for Crossy Road, which allow cooperative or competitive Frogger-like gameplay using any iDevice as a secondary controller (sorry, Android users). While this kind of mode would be technically possible on an iPad, gathering multiple people around a tablet isn't the same as sharing a couch for TV gaming. This kind of local multiplayer experience was one of the best features of the Ouya, and it'll likely be an attractive selling point for Apple TV gaming as well.

Further Reading

For some small segment of the public, the Apple TV will probably provide all the TV-based gaming they need. For a parent with a young child begging to get into the Disney Infinity universe, for instance, an Apple TV with its intuitive remote, its suite of easy-to-use media apps, its relatively low $150 price, and its familiar Apple name could look more appealing than the likes of the Xbox One or the PS4. A social butterfly who wants to occasionally break out party games after finishing a movie might also turn into a big Apple TV gamer.

But I don't think Microsoft and Sony have to worry about Apple TV significantly eating into their mindshare or marketshare, as the iPhone and other smartphones did to dedicated portable consoles. The iPhone's tilt-sensitive, multi-touch screen and easy Internet connectivity allowed for gaming experiences that just weren't possible on the portable competition at the time. The Apple TV seems less poised to offer much that can't be done (and sometimes done better) on more powerful TV consoles (touchpad remote notwithstanding). On the contrary, it seems that Apple TV apps will face significant restrictions on size and local storage that will make game development tougher, in many cases.

The iPhone also had the stealth advantage that people who bought it for communication reasons always had it in their pockets, while they might leave a Nintendo or Sony portable system at home unless they had specific plans to play. This is less of an issue in the living room, where many people are going to have both the Apple TV and a console sitting under the same television, competing directly for easy gaming access.

It's possible there may be an untapped market of potential TV gamers who have just been unwilling to spend the extra money on a PS4 or Xbox One (or even a Wii U). Maybe these gamers finally discover a deep and abiding need to play games on the big screen once those titles are stealthily thrust in front of them through an unrelated Apple TV purchase. And maybe some indie developer will create a breakout hit that would have never seen the light of day in a more restrictive console environment, becoming a system seller for Apple TV's gaming side in its own right.

More likely, though, gaming on the Apple TV will probably be a nice secondary feature that doesn't drive purchases as much as Netflix and iTunes movies do with a simple, easy-to-use interface.

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

185 Reader Comments

Interestingly, as a PC gamer I'm more likely to use an Apple TV for a "console" than dropping the >2x as much on a high end console. Why? Guests. I wouldn't use the gaming features much myself, but when I've got people over why not? I'll already have the ATV for streaming shit, so there's no extra expenditure.

Another TV streaming box, only its much more expensive than all the others, and limited to Apples walled garden.

They might as well have made it only controllable by the Apple Watch, just to make it completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll be heartbroken to sell a ton of them and having a large ongoing revenue stream from the userbase that has repeatedly been shown to spend more money on apps instead of only getting the free crap (and they can get a cut of ad revenue from those anyway!).

Apple has shown time and time again that they *do not give a fuck* about the heavily tech-involved crowd. We're not nearly as profitable to market to and we're a lot more work to please. Why bother?

The remote is going to limit the games. I guess you could have third party remotes, but without an OEM standard version as a base I'm dubious. Plus the additional remotes are iPhones and iPads. That sounds like you're dealing with some latency factors that will limit games to the more casual types.

Yo I'm bookmarking this for when rockband or guitar hero or whatever awesome music game you can play with your phone as the controller outsells the big plastic instrument versions for "high end" consoles 3-to-1.

Another TV streaming box, only its much more expensive than all the others, and limited to Apples walled garden.

They might as well have made it only controllable by the Apple Watch, just to make it completely irrelevant.

Did you miss the entire article where it's able to play games, has something approaching console graphics (probably Wii U level), has a motion controller (like the Wii U), and a $150 pricepoint?

It isn't going to steal anyone's thunder yet, but Apple plays a very long game.

Imagine if they switch to using an A8X next year, or with a software update clock the Apple TV up a bit; imagine switching to an A9 the year after that. Hint, if you didn't already know; the PS4 uses a [url=tablet]Kaveri[/url] processor and GPU for it's games, broadly comparable to a mid to low level Core i3 part.

The PS4 boosts the performance a bit by clocking higher and doubling the cores, both things easily attainable by Apple as well (see the difference between the A8 and A8X).

The A8X is already comparable to a MacBook Air Core i3 part, so again, it's really a matter of time before the Apple TV matches a PS4 or XB1.

The remote is going to limit the games. I guess you could have third party remotes, but without an OEM standard version as a base I'm dubious. Plus the additional remotes are iPhones and iPads. That sounds like you're dealing with some latency factors that will limit games to the more casual types.

I look at this updated Apple TV as supplemental to the PS4/XBO. It's not that Apple TV will provide a better experience, per se, but it serves the same purpose as our (now outdated) Smart TV, but goes a little further by providing additional ways for us to enjoy content we've bought for iOS on our other devices.

I understand that a lot of the excitement has to be reserved until we see how quickly developers update their apps to support the remote, but there is great potential and the basic features of tapping, swiping and titling are there.

I like how kids can gather around the TV with their iPods and join in on a game on the big screen. It's very Nintendo-ish and the hope is that developers take advantage and users buy into it. It's something the entire family could enjoy.

Imagine new interactive ways of watching TV with your family. The Apple TV is positioned well to improve on the social TV aspect within the home. These are things the Fire TV should already be doing. It'll be interesting to see if the Apple TV sells and if developers update current games and come out with new ones specifically for the device and how fast it all happens.

Curious how soon Apple will update the TV... Will we see a new model next year and a price drop or will it be 2-3 year cycles?

What's ignored is the massive economies of scale that the iPhones and iPads give the Apple TV components means that the new Apple TV is profitable from day 1. This allows Apple to upgrade and improve the Apple TV innards on an annual basis.

The consoles from Sony and MS on the other hand are unable to turn a per unit profit from devices selling for 3 times the cost of the Apple TV, which means MS and Sony release consoles on a 5 year cadence to recover the money they spend on developing these.

Moore's law will have an upgraded Apple TV releasing every 1 year beating XBox/PS consoles in terms of raw compute power for more years than not.

The only missing factor is a controller, but iOS already provides manufacturers and devs with APIs to make/target games requiring controllers. It's quite possible that after a generation or two of AX processor upgrades Apple will start bundling it's own controller.

BlackBerry and Windows Mobile had absolutely nothing to fear from the first iPhone, either.

To be fair, it's a bit different, as the first iPhone did target other smartphones, and this thing is not targeting the "real grown-up" dedicated game consoles (yet, and likely for a few years).

The PS4 and XB1 really don't have anything to worry about from this, and won't for some time yet.

The WiiU, on the other hand... if this is cheaper (it is), and has a more powerful CPU (I believe it does), and targets the same kind of interactions like simplistic motion controls (it does: witness the Harmonix demo), and has some of the good games for that platform (it does: witness the Disney Infinity 3.0 demo), it could really take a bite out of WiiU sales.

Remember when Nintendo wasn't worried about the iPhone taking over the handheld gaming market?Apple's App Store and the Android stores have more games now than have ever been released for Nintendo's handhelds.Apples phones and Android phones become more powerful every year, a pace Nintendo could not hope to match.Everyone was buying smart phones anyway.

The biggest knock against the Apple TV is difficult market of set top boxes (really set bottom boxes because you can't really put things on top of flat screen TVs). When every device already has Netflix, why bother with something new?

Yo I'm bookmarking this for when rockband or guitar hero or whatever awesome music game you can play with your phone as the controller outsells the big plastic instrument versions for "high end" consoles 3-to-1.

In units sold or in monetary volume / profit? (You know, the same metric people use to say Android kicks iOS in the tuchus?)

(Because in units sold I believe we're already there. And, Harmonix was one of the developers demoing on this thing too!)

Interestingly, as a PC gamer I'm more likely to use an Apple TV for a "console" than dropping the >2x as much on a high end console. Why? Guests. I wouldn't use the gaming features much myself, but when I've got people over why not? I'll already have the ATV for streaming shit, so there's no extra expenditure.

Yeah, we passed on the high end consoles this time. We still have an original Xbox, NES, Genesis, and Nomad in use. The kids have two PS3s...and have no interest in a 4.

We are upgrading a Gen2 Apple TV to a new one for the very reason you cite; friends and family.

There's a large group of people who will buy this are exactly the people that would never ever buy an XBox or a Playstation or a Wii. An Apple TV is a "grown up" device, and if it plays a few casual games, that doesn't hurt it. This will go in the living rooms of people who are conscious of the negative stereotypes that dedicated gaming machines carry. Even if it is or becomes a very good gaming device, it is still a TV first, and that's what will matter when marketing to that segment.

I'm still baffled why people are comparing it to the Wii U. Seems more comparable to the original Wii...

Based on what, exactly?

The non-x86 CPU that I believe is more powerful than the WiiU's own non-x86 CPU? The 32GB and 64GB storage options, comparing to the WiiU's 8GB and 32GB options? The demo of 1080p at 60 frames per second?

(It does come with a motion controller instead of a spare tablet, I'll give you that much.)

Having apps doesn't seem that useful when things like Chromecast/FireTV exist. My TV already has apps builtin and I never use them just because it's easy to cast from a phone/tablet.

Depends on your use case.

For me personally, in order of importance:

1. I'll get a native Plex app that'll be a lot more usable than the one from the TV's app store. 2. Airplay Mirroring3. Other apps that everything else has like Netflix, Amazon, etc. 4. Theoretically it should be able to sync user data within appleids/icloud. Will it? Who knows.

1 is self explanatory. I'd pay $150 for that alone.

2 is great for quickly showing people a youtube clip without dealing with a janky shithouse UI and selecting one letter at a time, which would be my primary use case. Yes, I could use ChromeCast or whatever for this but it's built into the OS and means I can easily let guests do it as well.

3. If one device does everything acceptably, I no longer have any need to use any other devices for input. The display becomes a dumb monitor that I can calibrate against one single source.

4. If I've signed into a given app once, I don't ever want to have to do it again. I use a password manager so logging into random services on a device that I can't use the PW manager on is annoying. If I can sign into Amazon, Netflix, etc etc on my phone and have my AppleTV automagically sign into all of those as soon as I sign into my AppleID? Glorious.

Interestingly, as a PC gamer I'm more likely to use an Apple TV for a "console" than dropping the >2x as much on a high end console. Why? Guests.

You do realise you'd likely need to budget for a controller as well, right?

Thats another 50-100 USD at least.

…which I'd also have to do with a console.

edited: I had parsed the argument as one of "additional controllers for additional people", but apparently the claim being made is based on the utility of the included remote for gaming, which I don't think any of us are yet qualified to comment on.

It is not too hard to imagine party games where each guest uses their iPhone as a controller. It is also not too much of a stretch to imagine that they may get close to PS3/Xbox360 graphics. I don't expect the primary purchasing reason to be games, but I do expect a few good games to be produced.